The Decibel - Campaign Call: What it means to be a ‘change’ candidate

Episode Date: March 28, 2025

Welcome to The Decibel’s inaugural election panel!Each week, we’re going to focus on a major theme from the week’s campaign, and provide some analysis about what’s happening. Then, we’re going to unpack specific policy promises from the big parties to help you decide how to vote. We’ll end by answering your questions. So here’s a reminder to send us an e-mail or voice note with your questions about the campaign.This week we look at how all of the candidates are trying to campaign on the idea that they are the change Canada needs, and then we’ll break down the duelling tax cuts from the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP.For our first panel today, we’ve got Ottawa-based feature writer Shannon Proudfoot, columnist Robyn Urback and economics reporter Nojoud Al Mallees.Questions? Comments? Ideas? E-mail us at [e-mail]

This is an election like no other. We've got a prime minister running for reelection after nine days on the job. Canada is engaged in a trade war with two of the world's biggest economies. And the sovereignty of our nation has been challenged by our closest ally. To make sense of it all, the Decibel is convening a weekly special election panel at the end of every week until election day. Each panel will have three parts.

First, we're going to focus on a major theme from the week's campaign and provide some analysis about what's happening. Then we're gonna unpack specific policy promises from the big parties to help you decide your vote. And we'll end by answering your questions. So here's a reminder to send us an email or a voice note with your questions about the campaign. For our first panel today, we've got Ottawa-based feature writer Shannon Proudfoot,

columnist Robin Urbach, and economics reporter Najud Almelis. I'm Manika Ramen-Welms, and this is The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. Shannon, Robin, Najud, welcome to our inaugural election panel. This is exciting. Thanks for having me. Hey, thanks for having us. It's great to have you all here. We're talking Thursday afternoon. This is around three o'clock or so.

This is, of course, the first week of the federal campaign. Everybody kicked off their campaign Sunday, Monday this week. And we've been hearing a lot about this idea of change coming from all the leaders. We will put Canada first for a change. We are different and we're going to make it clear that New Democrats have your back and that we're in it for you. Because I know we need change. Big change. Positive change. So Shannon, let's start with you here. What does change mean in this election? Apparently, it's everything. It's the thing everyone's chasing. I mean, the thing is, this was supposed to be a change election. And in a lot of ways, it has to be. Look,

I'm going to be a bit ruthless here and kind of cut the NDP out of my part of this answer. I'm going to focus on the red team and the blue team because realistically that's who's going to form the government. But for each of them, there's a huge impetus to frame this around change, right? For Pierre Poliev, he has been beating the stuffing out of the Liberals for two years on the idea of change, that the Liberal government has been in charge for 10 years, you know, three terms. He's merrily been telling everyone how everything that's wrong with Canada is the Liberals' fault and has been doing really, really well with that. And so he was supposed to be able to ride this wave of change right into the

PMO. So his sort of chasing of the change narrative is pretty obvious. I think Mark Carney is trying to pull off like a trickier move in trying to claim the change mantle because he obviously is still of the party that has been in government for 10 years. He keeps calling it Canada's new government. He keeps underlining the fact that it's like this lean mean trade war machine and how much he's approaching things differently. You know, he is a liberal. He's running as a liberal. He's got a lot of the same cabinet ministers, but is trying very, very hard to be something different and something distinct because they're obviously both responding to the fact that there seems to be an appetite for change in the public.

AMT – Yeah. So Robin, let me ask you then, continuing on with this theme of Mark Carney and the liberals, how credible is this change narrative for him? RG – I think, I mean, judging on where the public is after this first week, and granted it's only been the first week, I think somehow he's pulling it off. And it's a question, you know, I've asked myself just looking at what's been happening over the past week, like how can this guy come and lead this party, the party that's been in power for nine years and not only that bring back the old guard. So we have people who previously claimed that they weren't going to run again, like Anita Anand and Sean Frazier and some of the old guards, Stephen Guilbault and others of the old team are coming back and not only that they're asking for a majority mandate. So how is

this guy pulling it off? And I think it's twofold and it's pretty smart on the part of the liberals. One is that he came out of the gate as Prime Minister making changes right away. So he came out and he axed the carbon tax, or as the conservatives say, he's hiding it to bring it back later, but we're not gonna get into that. So he did that. He took a hacksaw to cabinet right away

and whittled it way down. He's talking about canceling the planned increase to the inclusion rate for capital gains. He's making all of these changes very quickly and very fast. And I think it's giving credibility to the inclusion rate for capital gains. He's making all of these changes very quickly and very fast and I think it's giving credibility to the idea that hey, this guy is different, he's gonna do things differently. I think the other thing that makes a big difference,

frankly, is that the leader looks different. He sounds different. He doesn't act the way Justin Trudeau did. He doesn't talk in those sort of platitudes the way that we're used to. And I think most Canadians, they're not kind of like political freaks like us that that pour over every little detail. This guy actually does look and sound quite different. So I think for those two reasons, the liberals are pulling it off. And I think it's going to have to take a lot, frankly,

to convince Canadians that this is the old guard. I know that's what Pierre Poliev is trying to get across. I don't think it's working actually all that well. Well, let's talk a little bit more about Poliev then because Shannon, as you mentioned earlier, you know, he was supposed to ride this wave of change into office here. He's actually seemed to not really be changing his talking points that much, right? He's still focused on the carbon tax, talking about liberal mismanagement. These are the same themes that he's been focused on for months now. What does this maybe lack of change tell us about the conservative campaign?

Yeah, he looks like a bit of a deer in the headlights to me. We could see this coming in a milder way months ago when Trump first started talking about you know, bulldozing Canada taking it over. And Poliev just couldn't seem to find an effective gear to respond to this. And now he looks like he's fighting yesterday's political battles. I mean, frankly, Mark Carney has been pretty wily, like eating his lunch for him and just like gobbling it off his tray because as Robin said, he's sort of taking these things out from under Poliev that have been his very effective cudgels. But Poliev to me does not seem to have been able to find a way to pivot. Like even the slogans he's been using, I know this is this

risks being like criminally shallow, but like the slogans we've seen on the front of the lecterns as he's been making the rounds in the campaign this week, it's Canada First, which has been his message pivot to respond to Donald Trump. And it's, I think it's been sort of a halfway attempt to be a little less negative. It got immensely awkward for Poliev to keep prosecuting the case that Canada was garbage that had been left on the side of the highway by Justin Trudeau once we had this nationalist groundswell of response to Trump. So it seems to me like events have conspired to just cut off at the knees everything that's been working for Pauliev for two years. But at the same time, I would say I do not think he has responded

effectively to it. He hasn't found a different way to kind of be in the moment. It's very strange. Pauliev looks frozen to me. Yeah, it's interesting. You mentioned his new slogan, Write Canada First. He's now added for a change to the end of that, too. Sorry. that's where I was going with that. I'm a little under caffeinated, but I find that almost touching, like the awkwardness of that pivot. Canada First with a piece of masking tape underneath for a change, just to remind you of what this was supposed to be about this election. Yeah. Nujood, what have you been noticing here when it comes to these change narratives that the parties are trying to evoke? Anything stand out to you about what these parties are trying to do?

Obviously, initially, this was supposed to be a change election and the change was supposed to be away from Justin Trudeau, as you know, both Robin and Shannon mentioned. But now the focus of this election and the issue that's on the top of mind for Canadians has also changed. It was very much affordability before, bread and butter issues that Pierre Poliev really tapped into housing, right? Talk about housing a lot. We don't really talk about housing as much right now.

And the focus has changed really to the United States, to tariffs and who would be best at leading the country through these tumultuous times. And so even though it's still the economy in a broad sense, that's top of mind for Canadians, it's a different set of challenges with regards to the economy. And Canadians are looking at who is the best leader

to deal with someone like Donald Trump, who's the best to strengthen relationships with other countries and allies, who is the best person to deal with the economic transition Canada might have to undergo to become more resilient and less reliant on the United States? The issue of the campaign has really changed and Canadians are really looking for something different and that's where the competition is now.

This is a really interesting point that the issue, maybe the main issue has really changed, shifted south of the border. Robin Shannon, do you want to weigh in on this? How has the Trump factor, I guess, changed the way people are approaching the campaign? If we try and throw our minds back to December, let's say, the issue is all about affordability and housing and carbon tax and all those other things. And ironically, I think Pierre Pellier have almost

prosecuted that too well, right? Like he was saying, we need to get rid of Justin Trudeau. We need to get rid of the carbon tax. We need to totally upend our economy. And he kind of did that. Like he got rid of Justin Trudeau. He got rid of the carbon tax in a way. And he pushed those things out of the way so that now when Trump comes in and he threatens to, you know, unleash a Tasmanian devil in our economy, those other foils that Pierre Poliev had before aren't there. And I think what the liberals have done smartly as well is they've tried to narrow that policy gap between what the conservatives and the liberals are proposing.

So we're seeing a lot of echoes between what Carney's coming out and saying and what Poliev's saying. They've both talked about tax cuts. They've both talked about tax cuts. They've both talked about building housing. They're both talking about infrastructure development and resource extraction on all of those things. And I mean, it irritates conservatives and liberals when you point out how similar their platforms are.

But it actually kind of is if you just skirt over some of the specific details. So the question that's left before Canadians is, okay, who do you trust to actually implement these plans if there isn't all that much daylight between what you're getting from the two parties? And sorry, NDP, I know you're still there, but frankly, you're kind of out of the conversation at this point. And who do we trust to deal with Trump? And I think that's where Pierre Poliev has really faltered. And I understand why. I mean, we can see from polling that there's a percentage of his base that doesn't really

want him to go hard against Donald Trump or that agree with Donald Trump on a lot of issues. So he's walking this really difficult, fine line between trying to stand up to Donald Trump in a way that appeals to all Canadians. And certainly there's appetite for that now, but not wanting to alienate that 20 or so percent, whatever it is, of his base that would be really put off by that and maybe not come out to vote or lend their vote to the People's Party. So he's in a very tough spot.

But again, if the question is, and we can see it from various polls, who do you trust to stand up to Donald Trump, which seems to be the ballot question, we're seeing unequivocally that Mark Kearney takes that title hands down. I think Robin's absolutely right that Poliev sort of at this moment is kind of a cautionary tale and be careful what you wish for or be careful what happens if you get exactly what you wish for.

And the liberals have also done this sort of amazing shimmy where they've managed to inhabit the space where all of that bad stuff used to be and say like none of it was us. Like it's sort of an incredible like political jujitsu move. But we hear talk about the ballot question and I always wonder if it's one of those things that pundits like us, like guilty as charged, that us nerds and freaks who follow this stuff, like that we talk about it as though it's like a diagnosis, like a thing that as an election came, a campaign unfolds at a certain point in the campaign. All Canadians will sort of have like beamed into their brain the idea that this is the question, this is

the rubric on which we are judging who we vote for. I just don't think collective human brains work that way, but this time Trump is so obviously the ballot question and this kind of object that blots out the sun that it doesn't even feel particularly organic to me or like unfolding. It just is. Canadians are worried and they're angry and they can't individually do anything to withstand any of this. Like all of this, the problem of this, the fallout of the tariffs, all of these issues exist at a level way above the heads of ordinary people. We can't do anything about it. So we have to pick someone that we think can. And I think that's where all the energy has kind of gone. I'll add a couple of words about the NDP since we all are acknowledging here. They're

mostly out of out of this fight, but I'll just make the point that when Canadians are looking for change, it requires political parties to pivot and to respond to the new set of concerns that voters have. And the first struggle for the NDP was that because of the Supply and Confidence Agreement, they were tied to the Liberals for a very long time, and that made it hard to pivot as affordability became the top concern and there was anger towards the federal government. The second moment where they had a challenge to pivot is actually in this election campaign. You heard Jagmeet Singh on the first day of the campaign attack Mark Carney with similar lines that the NDP would usually use against the liberals or their opponents, painting Mark Carney as a guy

who was always in it for the billionaires, ignoring the fact that he's been a public servant for a long time as well. And it showed that the instinct is to go back to the playbook that they're familiar with. And that is also a challenge in a moment where Canadians are looking for a serious leader to lead them through these kind of tumultuous times. And normally you would think that the NDP should be the ones to have a lot to say about people's economic anxieties, especially those maybe who are on the lower end of the income spectrum. But the inability to pivot on messaging, to change the way JIG meet communicates with people is also

a challenge. And you're seeing that in the polls right now, the NDP is not looking great for them. I think that Judah's right. If I can just hop on that as well. I think there's a failure to sort of grapple with reality here, which we're seeing from Jagmeet Singh in the NDP. I mean, like you hear him talk and he'll talk about when I'm prime minister, I'm gonna do this,

this and that. And like, okay, when I am like a beauty queen and, you know, flying around Rome in my private jet, I'm gonna do this, this and that too, but okay, when I am like a beauty queen and, you know, flying around Rome in my private jet, I'm going to do this, this and that too, but it's not going to happen. The NDP is really struggling now because we see that their vote has migrated to the liberals. And I think what Singh needs to do is come out and make the case for people coming back to him. He needs to sort of acknowledge that, look, the NDP isn't going to form official opposition. We know that, but maybe there's a case in X riding, Y riding, Z riding for you to support our local candidates.

And maybe that's the best that the NDP can hope for right now based on the reality of what's happening in this campaign. And I don't think we're really seeing that from the NDP now. We're seeing the same old campaigning that really doesn't work in this specific election. I think that's a perfect way to end this first half. I'm glad we got the NDP in there as well as the two major parties. Let's take a break. We'll be right back with some talk about policy. All right, so now we're going to shift gears a little bit.

Each week on the panel, we're going to break down some policy promises that leaders are making. And this week, we're going to talk about income tax relief. So we saw all three of the major parties make promises on this front in the last few days. Najude, what are the details of these promises? So maybe we can start with the liberals because they announced theirs first What exactly did we hear from them? So the liberals and conservatives announced a similar cut to the First income tax bracket which is currently at 15 percent and the liberals are promising to bring that down to 14 percent

While the conservatives are going to cut by 2.25, which brings it down to 12 point seven five percent are going to cut by 2.25, which brings it down to 12.75%. In terms of how much that will help Canadians, a person can expect to save a maximum of $400 a year from the liberal cut and a maximum of $900 a year from the conservative cut. Now, when it comes to the NDP, they attack both of those cuts, saying that both of those tax breaks will also go to high-income individuals. And so instead, New Democrats are proposing increasing the amount of money you can make that would be tax-free. And so right now, that number is set around $15,000 and they'd bump it up to $19,500. They would only give that increased tax break for those who make under $177,000. And so they're arguing it will be more targeted relief for lower and middle income Canadians

in comparison to the conservative and liberal proposals. Okay. Najud, how much money would these tax cuts cost the federal government? Because that's really where they're going to see the impact of this. So the conservative tax cut, which would be the most generous, would cost $14 billion a year once it's fully phased in. For the liberals, it would be $6 billion annually, and for the NDP, it's $10.4 billion. I will add, though, that the NDP have other tax proposals that they have announced this

week as well as the conservatives. So this isn't a full costing. that the NDP have other tax proposals that they have announced this week, as well as the conservative. So this isn't a full costing, this is just kind of the tip of the iceberg of announcements we're getting, and I'm sure we'll be hearing more. Okay, and would these cuts actually benefit everyone, like including the wealthiest Canadians,

or are these more targeted towards lower and middle class Canadians? In terms of these three tax cut proposals, most Canadians would benefit from them, but low and middle income earners will benefit the most. There are other proposals that have been made that would affect different demographics. So on Thursday, the conservatives announced that they are going to raise the contribution amount to the tax-free savings account at additional $5,000, but you'd have to invest in Canadian firms only for that $5,000 top up.

The Conservatives are selling it as both a way to increase investment in Canadian firms and also give Canadians more of an opportunity to save. A measure like that, though, would definitely help high-income earners much more. I think for Canadians who are struggling with day-to-day affordability, they haven't maxed out their TFSA, so that extra $5,000 is not going to mean much for them. While the NDP have other tax proposals that they're pitching for affordability, including

increasing the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, cutting the GST on essentials, and doubling the Canada disability benefit. The Liberals, we haven't heard anything really beyond that income tax cut and so I'm sure they will have more to say about how they would make life more affordable for Canadians. Okay, well I'm glad you brought that up because obviously it seems like these promises are meant to address the affordability crisis in Canada. But, of course, the other big economic issue right now is the trade war with the United States. So, Najud, would these income tax changes actually help people weather the cost of those

American tariffs? So one of the largest criticisms of these tax breaks, at least from the perspective of economists, is that this isn't the right time for them. And this isn't the right design of a tax cut. The federal government, whoever forms government next, will have a lot of economic challenges to deal with related to tariffs. They will have to provide support for workers who lose their jobs. There will be industries that will be deeply impacted and that will cost a lot of money.

And instead, these tax breaks will be going to a broad number of Canadians. It isn't a targeted measure at those who will actually need the help most if we are in a full-blown trade war for a prolonged period of time and so it's a costly decision to make but tax cuts feel like almost a rite of passage in an election campaign. I mean to to this point, though, of, you know, if we're in a difficult situation with the trade war, you mentioned earlier how these tax cuts, these would take billions of dollars out of the pocket of the federal government, depending on whose plan we're looking at there. Would that kind of hinder the ability of the government to actually help Canadians in such

a situation? Well, it's going to be debt financed unless the next government is willing to make significant cuts and has that billions of dollars a year to compensate for that tax cut. So, sorry, these would add to our federal debt then essentially. Absolutely. A deficit would increase unless you can find cuts to make. Now, we're already in a situation where the deficit is well above 40 billion dollars. where the deficit is well above $40 billion, you add these tax cuts in addition to promises on defense spending, on other priorities, Mr. Carney's speaking a lot about spending on infrastructure.

Those are all costly endeavors, and this will be one more thing to pay for. And we haven't even started talking about what kind of supports the federal government will have to roll out as this trade war continues. Okay, let's talk about the strategy behind these income tax cuts then. Shannon, Robin, I want to open this up to you. What should voters make of the fact that all three party leaders made these announcements

this week and Carney and Poliev made an income tax cut their first policy promise? What does this signal to you? I worry a bit like Dajud was saying that this is just table stakes, that this is just flinging treats at the electorate from a parade float without much coherence. Like, you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of Doug Ford mailing everyone $200 checks while no one can get a doctor and what we collectively could have done with that money. Like that was the exact argument the economists in Najud's very smart story this week were

making which is we can either pool this money, put it all in a pot and decide what we do with it as we face an existential trade threat, or we can give it out pennies or dollars at a time. I mean, I always try to check myself in thinking about how small ball a tax cut looks, recognizing that I'm relatively really lucky, but I still think if you're talking $500 a year for people, that is really, really small potatoes. And like I would argue the affordability thing, like Donald Trump is an affordability question or an affordability problem or some different facet of that. You know, it's kind of layering and compounding. People are still worried about how much their groceries cost, how high their mortgage is,

how much it costs to fill up their car. And now they might also be very, very worried about their industry collapsing or losing their job. So I sort of understand like the, I guess, emotional political like impulse behind it. But strategically in terms of making smart choices about how we face this very, very like stiff headwind, this these big, big problems. It just seems like a bit of a strange kind of politically cheap, I guess, thing to offer to people. I think Shannon's totally right. It is politically cheap.

I think it also works, right? And I think we're seeing that. A few other aspects in the campaign. The other day Pierre Pellet came out and he announced that he was gonna keep old age security at 65, even though he was in his role in the former government under Stephen Harper, they plan to raise it to 67. And then of course, the Trudeau liberals came in and they said, no, no, we're going to bring it back down to 65. And that's politically popular,

especially with boomers who come out to vote, as we know. But it doesn't make a lot of fiscal sense considering that on aggregate, those 65 plus are doing better than younger cohorts in Canada and that we're going to have a crisis when it comes to healthcare if we're not already there and a few other things. We don't have enough workers to pay for all the retirees that we're seeing and going to continue to see. But nobody wants to hear, especially at this time when our economy is so threatened by Donald Trump, that Pierre Polyev is going to come out and raise the retirement age to 67 or... We are hearing sort of large scale promises in terms of addressing affordability as a big picture thing.

So talking about stimulus programs, talking about if we are absolutely destroyed by these tariffs we're going to diversify our trading partners and try and gear up our resource development and so forth. But those things generally take time and people are hurting now and they're worried now. So this is a way to say to them, look, I'm going to give you back some of your own money immediately. And it's something that makes people feel a little bit better in terms of the actual impact it's going to have on their bottom line. It's not going to make all that much of a difference. Hmm. Okay. So when it comes to maybe easing people's anxiety around the cost of living, it might

do that. But, Nujood, I guess I wonder just in our last couple of minutes here, is there a more effective way to address people's anxieties? Is the income tax cut the best way to do this? Well, as a young person myself, I wonder what happened to the priority of helping young people with affordability and housing affordability specifically went because the conservatives have proposed two tax changes that would very much favor older people both in terms of increasing the TFSA contribution limit. The PBO did a study on this in 2015 found that the

TFSA is not only regressive in terms of who it helps, but it also helps older demographics. And when you increase the contribution limit, you exacerbate how aggressive it is. The other piece is that the conservatives are promising to increase the amount of income seniors can make tax free to $34,000, an additional $10,000. That is shifting the burden from older people to younger people in terms of taxation. And so I'm wondering if young people are going to notice, we all know that older demographics vote more, and you're seeing that really play out in the proposals we've heard in the first week of this campaign. I'm waiting to see if this shifts at all and whether any of the parties are going to be tapping into the affordability anxieties that younger generations have, many

folks my age feeling like they will never be able to buy a home. And so far, no solutions presented to that other than there have been some announcements about making homes under a certain price GST free. But I'm waiting to see whether there's going to be a real plan on how do you make the economy fairer for younger generations who have been completely priced out. Okay, let's let's leave that there. We've got a few more minutes here of our panel and in this last little bit I'm going to throw you all some questions from our listeners here at The Globe. So Robin, maybe I'll start with you here. Our first

question comes from Graham in Toronto and he asks, will there be advanced polls in a short election? Yes, there are going to be advanced polling stations open. They're going to be open for four days. It's between April 18th and 21st from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. So there will be lots of time to get out there and cast your ballot if you can't make it out on the actual election day. And where can you find out where those polling stations are? If you have your voter information card, it should list it there. You can also go to Elections Canada website and they should have a list of all the polling stations near you.

Okay, our next question is from Stephanie. Najud, maybe I'll throw this one to you. And I should say a lot of people asked us some variation of Stephanie's question. She asks, is voting by mail an option in this election? It is. And if you will be outside of your riding or you're living abroad, you can reach out to Elections Canada and they will be sending you your voting kit. Just make sure to do that before April 22nd at 6pm Eastern. And to finish, we've got a question from Pierre in BC. He asks,

what's the deadline for the parties to nominate candidates? So Shannon can you tell us that one? Yeah so the deadline for nominations is April 7th and Elections Canada says by two days later, so by April 9th, you should be able to see the full slate of candidates. So that means if you're looking up in your writing who's running and you're not seeing a full slate yet, don't panic. Give it another week or two. All right. We're going to have to leave it there. Shannon, Robin, Najud, thank you all so much for being here. This is a lot of fun and very interesting. Thank you.

Thanks. This was great. Thank you. Thanks for having us. That was feature writer Shannon Proudfoot, columnist Robin Urbeck, and economics reporter Najud Al-Malese. That's it for today. I'm Maynika Ramon-Wilms. Our intern is Amber Ranssen. Our producers are Madeleine White, Michal Stein, and Ali Graham. David Crosby edits the show. Adrienne Chung is our senior producer, and Matt Frainer is our managing editor.

Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you soon.